MEPDE 

^ / • 
























CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND ITS LIMITATIONS. 


A 


DISCOURSE 


DELIVERED AT 


DUNBARTON, N.H., JANUARY 26, 1851 


BY REV. JOHN M. PUTNAM, 

Pastor of the Congregational Clrurch in that Place. 


PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 


CONCORD: 

PRESS OF McFarland & JENKS. 










DISCOURSE. 


KOMANS, 13; 1. 

LET EVERT BOUL BE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER POWERS; FOR THERE IS NO 

POWER BUT OP god ; THE POWERS THAT BE ARE ORDAINED OF GOD. 

This passage brings to view, in very comprehensive terms, 
the FOUNDATION, the OBLIGATIONS, and the proper limitations 
of civil government. On these three points it is proposed to 
dwell in this discourse. 

I. Let us consider the foundation of civil government. This 
is expressed in the declaration, “ The powers that be are ordain¬ 
ed of God.” By the powers that be, are meant civil powers. 
Rulers are styled powers, because to them is committed the office 
of government, in the discharge of the duties of which they ex¬ 
ercise a controlling influence over their fellow men. The foun¬ 
dation of this power is the will of God, who is the great source 
of all power, and who hath so constituted the state and relations 
of society as to render government indispensable to its highest 
good. God so estabhshed the nature of things, as to make gov¬ 
ernment a necessary part. Law, which is the rule of govern¬ 
ment, is primarily from God, the great creator of the universe, 
the great author of aU beings and of all things,—and lies at the 
foundation of universal good. 

It is by law that all created beings and things are regu¬ 
lated. Even the natural as well as the moral world has its 
established laws, which it obeys. These, in fanuliar language, 
are called the laws of nature ; though they are truly the laws 
of God,—being the uniform method by which God governs the 
natural world. 



4 


God’s moral law is of a higher order; carried on, not like 
natural law, by means of physical impulsions and adherences, or 
by movements resulting from animal instinct, but by the power 
of motives. 

The moral law is adapted to rational beings, and appeals to 
reason and conscience. It has its rewards and punishments ; 
rewards, in case of obedience, and punishments, in case of dis¬ 
obedience. This law is as extensive as the whole range of mind 
in the great creation of God, and is applied to all beings having 
rational faculties, whether angels or men. It is the golden chain 
that binds together the moral universe. In his own law God has 
laid the foundation of all law, and has given a model of the kind 
of government which meets his sanction. Law, as beautifully 
defined by Burke, is beneficence acting by rule.” 

II. We are to consider the obligations of civil govermnent. 
Civil government is binding, on the ground that it is an ordi¬ 
nance of God. The text is very explicit on this point: ‘‘ Let 
every soul be subject to the higher powers ; for there is no power 
but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” The 
apostle adds : “ Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resist- 
eth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to 
themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good 
works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the 
power ? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of 
the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But 
if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the 
sword in vain : for he is the minister of God, a revenger to exe¬ 
cute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs 
be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” 

These directions are plain and unequivocal. They establish, 
beyond a doubt, the binding authority of human governments 
over their subjects. Their authority is binding, because God 
has made it so. 

It may be argued also that human governments are binding, 
on the ground of their reasonableness, their adaptedness to the 
wants of mankind, and their tendency to promote the general 
good. This idea seems to be suggested by the apostle. “ Ye 


5 


must needs be subject,” he says, “not only for wrath^ but also 
for conscience^ sake.” That is to say,—we should yield obedi¬ 
ence to civil rulers, not merely through fear of punishment, if 
we transgress, but because it is right; because it corresponds 
with reason and the enlightened dictates of conscience. To 
obey for conscience’ sake, is to obey because conscience dictates 
that we ought to obey,—the things which are required of us be¬ 
ing reasonable, and for the general good. 

The apostle, in his injunctions to obey civil rulers, evidently 
goes upon the ground that they rule in a righteous manner ; that 
their enactments correspond with the great principles of the 
government of God, and are adapted to the promotion of the 
welfare of their subjects. Rulers, he says, are not a terror to 
good works, but to the evil. Do that which is good, and thou 
shalt have praise of the same. 

In these expressions it is implied that the laws are based on 
right principles, such as God approves, who put a conscience in 
our breasts to decide on right and wrong; that they are laws 
which, while they are sure to bring terror to the hearts of evil 
doers, will not fail to secure the meed of praise to those who do 
well. The ruler “ is the minister of God, a revenger to execute 
wrath”—upon whom ? “ Upon him that doeth m7.” There is 

nothing to fear on the part of those that do well; because it is 
taken for granted that there is no injustice done—the laws being 
based on the true principles of right. Conscience, therefore, 
gives in its approval, and decides in favor of obedience. It is 
on this ground the apostle inculcates subjection for conscience 
sake ; on the ground that government is an ordinance of God, 
exercised in conformity to its true design. We come now, 

III. To consider the proper limitations of civil government. 
The commands in the holy scriptures to obey rulers are in gen¬ 
eral terms, and without any specific qualifications. They are, 
however, by no means to be regarded as unlimited in their appfi- 
cation, any more than commands to children are to obey their 
parents, or wives to submit to their husbands. These commands 
are indeed positive. “ Children, obey your parents in all things.” 
Col. 3 : 20. “ Let the wives be subject to their own husbands 


.G 


in every thing.’^ Epli. 5 : 24. But are we to suppose that 
these commands, though thus positive, are to be taken and acted 
upon in an unqualified manner, and that fathel^s and husbands 
are to be obeyed, whether their commands are right or wrong ? 

Suppose a parent should command his child to commit theft, 
or perjury, or to utter blasphemies against the Most High ? 
Would the child be under obligations to obey ? Surely not. Or, 
suppose the husband should direct his mfe to burn her bible, re¬ 
nounce her faith in God, or bear false witness against her neigh¬ 
bor ; or do any thing else which would come in direct conflict 
with the dictates of her own conscience ? Would she be under 
obhgation to obey ? No one will pretend it. 

Take another case, in which positive commands are hmited. 
In the 13th chapter of Hebrews there are positive commands to 
obey religious teachers, both as to faith and practice. “ Re¬ 
member them which have the rule over you, who have spoken 
unto you the word of God; whose faith follow.” v. 7. Again, 
V.13, “ Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit 
yourselves, for they watch for your souls as they that must give 
account.” But who ever supposed, (except an ignorant papist, 
who regards both pope and priest infallible,) that a church or 
people, on account of these positive scriptural directions, are 
under any obligations to give themselves up to a blind and pas¬ 
sive conformity to their religious teachers ; believing and doing 
just what they direct, without any regard to the decisions of their 
own judgments, or the dictates of their, own consciences ? ” Who 
needs to be told that the obligation to obey does not extend to 
any thing wrong in itself, or contrary to the dictates of conscience 
or the word of God ? 

These remarks apply to civil government. Obligations to hu¬ 
man authority, in whatever capacity it may be exercised, cease 
of course when that authority departs from the sphere which God 
has assigned it, by contravening his law or the rights of con¬ 
science. Parental government, for instance, is acknowledged to 
rest on as firm a basis, and to be enforced by as positive com¬ 
mands, as any which is ever exercised by man. Yet it has its 
appropriate limits ; and just so far as it leaves its appointed prov- 


7 


ince, and stej3s upon unauthorized or forbidden gi*ound,it is shorn 
of its strength, and loses its efficiency. 

Civil government, as we have seen, is an ordinance of God; 
an ordinance enforced by positive commands. It thus stands on 
the platform of the Divine will; but whenever it steps from this 
platform, upon which God has placed it, it loses its basis, and 
stands on nothing. Just so far as it arrogates to itself rights 
which God has not conferred, by assuming the right to enact or 
enforce laws which are contrary to the laws of God and to con¬ 
science, the right arm of its strength is broken, and it ceases to 
have the power to enforce its requirements. , 

A stream cannot rise higher than its fountain, nor can civil 
government exercise prerogatives greater or beyond those which 
are to be found in the Great Source whence its power came. And 
let it be considered, God himself, by his own holy nature, is lim¬ 
ited to that which is right. Of course, whenever rulers attempt 
to pass this boundary, and legislate wrong into right; or, as the 
scriptures very forcibly express it, “ frame imQUiTY by law,” 
their laws can have no binding force. They not only act without 
God’s authority in such a case, but against his authority. They 
set themselves up against Jehovah, and assume to themselves 
prerogatives which Jehovah himself disclaims. They pass off 
from the foundation on which God has placed them, as law-mak¬ 
ers, and assume a position beyond and above the authority from 
which all their power is derived. Hence their laws, instead of 
having any binding force as law, are but acts of treason against 
the great Eternal; and, to yield obedience to such laws would 
be proving false to our Maker. God himself claims no right to 
do wrong. By his own holy nature, he is limited in the admin¬ 
istration of law to a course which is just and right. His own 
holiness forbids that in any case he should perpetrate wrong, 
pis law—^that great law which governs the universe—is based 
upon the immutable ground of right; and in the administration of 
it he always adheres to truth and justice, without variableness or 
shadow of turning.” Nor does he authorize men, either in their 
individual or organized capacity, to vary from these great prin¬ 
ciples which he has established. 


8 


This view of the subject corresponds with both reason and 
Revelation. It is the view of it which has been taken bj good 
men of every age. In confirmation of this remark, permit me 
here to introduce some brief extracts from distinguished the¬ 
ological writers. 

Says Calvin—In the obedience which we have shown to be 
due to the authority of governors, it is always necessary to make 
one exception, and that is entitled to our first attention; that it 
do not seduce us from our obedience to Him to whose will the 
desires of all kings ought to be subject,—^to whose decrees all 
their commands ought to yield,—to whose majesty all their scep¬ 
tres ought to submit. * * * jf command any thing 

against Am, it ought not to have the least attention.” 

Says Dr. Gill—Subjection to civil magistrates designs obey¬ 
ing their lawful commands, which do not contradict the laws of 
God, nature, and right reason. God is the fountain of all power 
and authority.” 

Says President Edwards, the younger—“ Rulers are bound 
to rule in the fear of God and for the good of the people ; and 
if they do not, then in resisting them we are doing God service.” 

Says Dr. Dwight—“ Subjects are bound to obey magistrates, 
when acting agreeably to the laws, in all cases not contrary to 
the will of God as unfolded in the scriptures. The directions of 
Paul and Peter caimot be supposed to require our obedience to 
those commands of a ruler which are opposed to the law of God.” 

Robert Hall, speaking of the obligation to civil governments 
being based on its tendency to do good, says—‘‘ Whenever this 
shall cease to be the case, submission becomes absurd. *' * * 
But at what time this evil shall be judged to have arrived, or 
what remedy it may be proper to apply, Christianity does not 
decide, but leaves it to be determined by an appeal to natural 
reason and right.” 

Says President Wayland—“ We have no right to obey an un¬ 
righteous law, since we must obey God at all hazards.” 

Says Whitby—‘‘ It is a contradiction to the holiness, justice 
and goodness of God, to say that he hath given princes any 
power to oppress, rob, spoil, murder, or to do injury to their 


9 


subjects. * * * AYe cannot be obliged, from conscience to¬ 

ward God, to be subject to rulers in those things which they have 
no authority from God to require.’’ 

Says Macknight on Romans—‘‘ These precepts do not enjoin 
obedience to the magistrates in things sinful, but in things mt 
sinful. * * * By telling them (Christians,) that they were 
to be subject on accoimt of conscience, he (the apostle,) intimat¬ 
ed that the subjection which he enjoined did not extend to things 
sinful.” 

■ Says Professor Stewart— It is only when magistrates keep 
within the bounds of moral prescription that obedience is a duty.” 

Says Professor Hodge, of Princeton—The obedience which 
the scriptures command us to render to our rulers is not unlimit¬ 
ed. There are cases in which disobedience is a duty. * * * 
No command to do any thing morally wrong can be binding, nor 
can any be which transcends the rightful authority of the power 
whence it emanates. * * * of deciding on all 

these points, and determining where the obligation to obedience 
ceases, and the duty of resistance begins, must, from the nature 
of the case, rest with the subject and not with the ruler. The 
apostles and early Christians decided this point for themselves, 
and did not leave the decision with the Jewish or Roman author¬ 
ities.” 

Says Barnes—“ There were cases where it was right to resist 
the laws. This the Christian religion clearly taught; and, in 
cases like these, it was indispensable for Christians to take their 
stand. When the laws interfered with the rights of conscience; 
when they commanded the worship of idols, or any moral wrong, 
then it was their duty to refuse submission.” 

Here we have a collection of authorities from the writings of 
some of the most eminent theologians and biblical critics that 
ever lived in any country or in any age of the world. And we 
find them all agreed in the grand principle laid down in this dis¬ 
course, respecting the limitations of human authority, and the 
right of individuals to refuse obedience to that authority, when 
it transcends its proper limits. In regard to the point when dis- 
2 


10 


obedience becomes a duty, every individual must, of course, 
from the very nature of the case, decide for himself, under a 
sense of his responsibihty to his conscience and his, God. 

The authors from whom the foregoing quotations are made, let 
it be observed, wrote perfectly independent of each other, and 
without any reference to any particular case which they wished 
to make out, or law, or government, which they wished to favor. 
They lived in different ages, in different countries, and under 
different forms of government, and belonged to different denomi¬ 
nations of Christians. But none*of these considerations influ¬ 
enced them. They did not write for any particular age, or 
country, or sect, but wrote principles adapted to every age and 
country. The modern theory, broached by certain teachers of 
ethics, that the limitations of human authority have respect 
merely to duties which relate to the worship of God, and not to 
duties which relate to our fellow-men, appears not to have been 
thought of by these unsophisticated writers, who expressed their 
sentiments without having any reference to any particular state 
policy, or any particular human enactment, which they were 
anxious to make provision for carrying out. This new theory in 
morals, which so unreservedly gives to rulers, acting in their offi¬ 
cial capacity, hcense to trample on all the dearest rights of their 
fellow-men, is much of the same character with that invented a 
few years since to nullify certain sins which were styled “ or¬ 
ganic sins that is, sins committed by organized bodies, for 
which nobody was responsible ; and, therefore, sins which it was 
proper to tolerate. 

It may be proper to shew, in this connection, that the opin¬ 
ions which have been introduced from theological writers on the 
subject before us, are not different, but correspond, with the opin¬ 
ions expressed by some of the most distinguished jurists. 

Says Lord Brougham—“ There is a law above all the enact¬ 
ments of human codes ; it is the law written by the finger of God 
upon the heart of man.” 

Says Judge Blackstone—Those rights which God and na¬ 
ture have established, and are therefore called natural rights, 
such as life and liberty, need not the aid of hwman laws to be 


11 


more efFectuallj invested in man than they are ; neither do they 
receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal 
laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has 
power to abridge or destroy them^ unless the man shall himself 
commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. * * * 
man laws are of any validity, if contrary to the will of God.” 

Judge McLean says, in his Reports—“ Statutes against fun¬ 
damental morality are void.” 

Authorities of this kind might be multiplied, but it is unneces¬ 
sary. The principle that the law of God is paramount—taking 
the precedency over all human constitutions and laws — is a fun¬ 
damental principle in morals ; a principle as permanent as the 
constitution of the nature of things, and as immutable as the 
throne of God,—being founded on his will. 

I shall now proceed to adduce scriptural examples, showing 
that this principle was abundantly recognized in the Bible by 
God himself, and fully met his approbation when acted out by men. 

The first example which I shall introduce, is one connected 
with the reign of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, given in the first 
chapter of Exodus. In order to weaken the Israelites, Pharaoh 
gave an express command to Shiphrah and Puah, and others, to 
kill all the male infants of the Hebrews that came under their 
care, as soon as they were born. But they disobeyed the com¬ 
mand, and saved the men-children alive. And for this, we are 
told, Crod dealt well with them. He approved of their disobedi¬ 
ence to the king’s wicked edict, and showed them special favor 
on that very account. And it is noticeable, in this case, that the 
edict of the king which they disobeyed had no reference to the 
worship of God, but only to their treatment to their fellow be¬ 
ings ; showing the utter groundlessness of the distinction already 
alluded to,—applying all exceptions to the binding authority of 
human law to our duties toward God. No matter whether the 
command relates to our Maker or our fellow men, if it conflicts 
with the Bivine law., we are not to obey it. 

The next example to which I would call your attention has 
reference to Jonathan’s treatment of David, recorded in the 


12 


nineteenth and twentieth chapters of the first book of Samuel. 
Jonathan, it should be borne in mind, had the obligation resting 
upon him of both the child and the subject^ to be; obedient; as 
Saul was his father, and at the same time his lawful king. But 
witness his course of conduct. Saul gave him an express com¬ 
mand to kill David. But Jonathan, instead of executing the 
order, immediately informed David of his father’s intentions, di¬ 
rected him to secrete fumself, and rendered him every assistance 
in his power to escape from his father’s hand. He even entered 
into covenant with him, and by his fidelity efiectually counteract¬ 
ed all his father’s designs upon his life. Here is a case of direct, 
deliberate, and persevering disobedience, on the part of the son 
and subject, towards the parent and ruler. And it was justifia¬ 
ble, and approved of God, because the command of the king was 
contrary to God’s law. 

The next example is one, not of disobedience^ but of wicked 
obedience to unrighteous laws. It is selected from the twelfth 
chapter of the first book of Kings. Jeroboam, the reigning 
king, from state policy, and with a view to make his kingdom 
more permanent, removed the place of the religious assembling 
of the Israelites,—transferring it from Jerusalem to Bethel and 
Dan, where he had erected his golden calves as a medium of 
worship. Hither he directed the people to repair and pay their 
homage, saying, “ It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem.” 
The people complied, according to the letter of the apostolic 
command, “ Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit 
yourselves.” But what was the consequence ? They were se¬ 
verely punished for rendering obedience to the wicked command 
of their king. Says God, by the mouth of the prophet Hosea, 
“ Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he ivil- 
lingly walked after the commandment that is, the command¬ 
ment of the king. “ Therefore will I be unto Ephraim as a 
moth, and to the house of Judah as rottenness.” Hosea, ch. 5. 

All along through the prophets we find the most pointed re¬ 
bukes to the people, because they submitted to the commands 
and followed after the counsels of their wicked kings and priests. 

The prophet Amos was commissioned to declare the judgments 


13 


of God against Israel, and especially against the house of Jero¬ 
boam. “ The liigh places,” saith God by this prophet, “ shall 
be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; 
and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” 
Chap. 7. Amaziah, the king’s minister and priest of Bethel, 
where the king had set up his golden calf, undertook to deter 
Amos from the execution of his commission. He charged him 
with conspiracy^ because he obeyed God rather than man, by de¬ 
claring the divine message, keeping nothing back. He ordered 
Amos to depart, lest vengeance should come upon him. ‘‘ 0 
thou seer,” exclaimed this vassal priest, “ go, flee thee away into 
the land of Judah. * * * Prophesy not again any more at 
Bethel, foe, it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s 
COURT.” Here was an express order to be off*, given in the name 
of the king. But did the prophet obey ? Did he tremble at 
the stern brow and threatening aspect of this time-serving para¬ 
site of a kingly throne ? Did he cower before this venal priest, 
who spoke in the behalf of his royal master, and tamely comply 
with his requisition to cease to speak in God’s name ? No : he 
turned to the priest, and with words of iron, and points of steel, 
which entered his very soul, replied, “ Hear THOU the word 
of the Lord. Thou sayest. Prophesy not against Israel, and 
drop not thy word against the house of Isaac,—therefore, thus 
saith the Lord, Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city, and thy 
sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall 
be divided by line ; and thou shalt die in a polluted land ; and 
Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land. Chap. 7 : 
16,17. 

I admire the boldness of the ancient prophets. Amos is a 
good specimen of this “ It is the KING’S CHAPEL, and it 
is the KING’S COURT,” said the priest, with an imperious 
tone,— depart! flee thee away ! He thought thus to frighten the 
unpretending herdman of Tekoa, who was wiUing to relinquish 
all claim to the honor of being reckoned among the seers. He 
thought to make the prophet flee from the king’s dominions, lest 
he should hear the thunder of the anathemas, and feel the scath¬ 
ing of the lightnings that should issue forth from the king’s court. 


14 


But how mistaken ! A voice, like the voice of many waters and 
mighty thunderings, fell upon his own ear, from the lips of the 
man of God who stood before him, (and whose countenance, as we 
may well suppose, was lighted up as with the fire of a seraph,)— 

“ Hear thou the word of the Lord.” He heard-and said 

no more. 

But notwithstanding the awLul rebukes which the prophets ut¬ 
tered, Israel did not reform and turn to God. Kings succeeded 
Jeroboam who were of like spirit, and who, by their wicked 
laws, continued to lead the people from God. As the scriptures, 
in language many times repeated, express it, ‘‘ They did evil in 
the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and 
in his sin, wherewith he made Israel to sin^ 

Terrible indeed were the denunciations from the Lord, which 
were uttered by the lips of Micah, as he “ declared unto Jacob 
his transgression, and unto Israel his sin.” Micah 3:8. 
“ Therefore,” says the prophet, ‘‘ shall Zion, for your sake,^^ that 
is, on account of your sins, ‘‘ be ploughed as a field, and Jeru¬ 
salem shall become heaps.” 3 : 12. ‘‘ I will make thee sick in 

smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins. * * * 
For the statutes of OMRI are ke^t, and all the works of the 
house of AHAB, and ye walk in their counsels, that I should 
make thee a desolation.” 6 : 13, 16. Now, who is this Omri, 
for the keeping of whose statutes God denounces such terrible 
judgments against Israel ? He was one of the kings of Israel, 
whose “ statutes’^ were the laws of the land. And who was 
Ahab, whose counsels God so severely rebukes his people for 
following ? Another of the kings of Israel. Yet for the keep¬ 
ing of the counsels and laws of these wicked kings, God brought 
upon his people the most awful calamities. 

But all the prophets were not like good Amos and Micah, 
whose language has been quoted. There were false prophets as 
well as true ones. These prophesied “ smooth things,” and “ the 
people loved to have it so.” These false prophets sustained the 
rulers, whether right or wrong, and encouraged the people to 
sustain them, and obey their laws, irrespective of the inquiry 
whether they were, or were not, in accordance with the “ higher 



15 


law” of God. And the people gave heed to these wicked teach¬ 
ings, and followed after the counsels, and obeyed the statutes, 
which issued from courts of iniquity and thrones of injustice, 
till they were given up a prey to their own hearts’ lusts, and 
“ their fear came wpon them as desolation^ and their destruction 
came upon them as a whirlwind. 

It was for this cause,—it was because they yielded themselves 
up as the willing servants of unrighteousness, obeying men 
rather than God,—that God at length made their city and nation 
an utter desolation, and subjected them to a long and tedious cap¬ 
tivity in a strange land. “ And there,” in the language of 
another, “ amid tyranny and oppression, he woke up the ancient 
spirit of the nation, and produced, amid the roar of lions in the 
royal den, and of flames in the fiery furnace, examples of obe¬ 
dience to God, and defiance of the authority of man, which have 
proved ever since a source of life and power to every intrepid 
spirit, and of terror to every tyrant.” 

Let me not here be misinterpreted. It is not rebellion that I 
would inculcate ; nor, in any case, disobedience to civil laws, un¬ 
less they conflict with the great law of God. I love law, and 
deprecate any infringement upon its true prerogatives. Every 
feeling of my soul is antagonistic to the spirit of anarchy and 
misrule. But I would have it based on its true foundation. 
Then let it 

“ O’er thrones and globes elate, 

Sit empress, crowning good, repressing ill.” 

The very name of law is pleasant to the ear of the Christian; 
and its very sound will find a responsive chord in every Chris¬ 
tian’s bosom. But it is genuine law, and not its counterfeit^ that 
the Christian reveres; law carrying out the spirit of Him who is 
the gi-eat Fountain of all law, order and regularity. 

“ The law of God in the human soul, 

The law of God in the Word Divine— 

It shall live, while the earth in its course shall roll. 

It shall live forever, in this heart of mine.’' 

Such is the feeling of every true friend of God and man. 
Civil government, as the text declares, is an ordinance of God. 


16 


It is an emanation from that eternal law which has just been 
brought to view. Standing upon this foundation, it is sacred, 
and entitled to the greatest respect. He who touches, with hos¬ 
tile hand, its heaven-furnished, its God-given shield, touches the 
arm of Omnipotence,—touches, as it were, the base of the eter¬ 
nal throne. Let him beware—let him tremble at the thought of 
thus raising his hand against the ordinance of God. But re¬ 
moved from its true foundation, “ on airy nothing hung,’’ and in 
vain must it expect to receive reverence from those who fear 
God. 

A good illustration of the genuine love of law, with due re¬ 
gard to its proper hmitations, is found in the case of the three 
Jewish brethren, as related in the third chapter of the book of 
Daniel. These men were law-abiding citizens, and faithful ser¬ 
vants of their king. In all things not inconsistent with the law 
of God, they were willing to obey, and render him the service 
he required. But when the king set up a golden image, and 
commanded all his subjects to bow down and worship it, then 
obedience, in their view, ceased to be a duty, and they acted 
accordingly. 

“ Is it true,” said the king to these good men, “ that ye do 
not serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have 
set up ? * * * If ye worship not, ye shall be cast, the same 

hour, into the midst of a burning fiery furnace ;—and who is 
that God that shall defiver you out of my hands ?” The three 
brethren replied: “0 Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to 
answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve 
is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will 
deliver us out of thine hand, 0 king. But if not, be it known 
unto thee, 0 king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship 
the golden image which thou hast set up.” 

This was nobly said, and they as nobly acted ; and the God 
whom they served sustained them in their course, and brought 
confusion upon all their adversaries. Not a hair of their head 
was singed, and over their bodies the fire had no power. 

A similar example of decision and fidelity to God is found in 
the case of Daniel, under the reign of king Darius, given in the 


17 


sixth chapter of the book that bears his name. By the king’s 
royal edict he was forbidden to offer prayer to his God for the 
space of thirty days. But Daniel, though one of the best of 
subjects, had respect unto a higher law than the king’s decree. 
He disobeyed the king’s edict, openly and boldly, in face of all 
his enemies. He might have pursued what the world would 
consider a safer and more judicious policy. He might have 
prayed to his God only in secret, and not let it be known that 
he violated the law, and thus escaped the dreadful alternative of 
being cast into the lions’ den. But he chose to be perfectly un¬ 
reserved and open in his disobedience, trusting to the God of 
Israel for support. 

We read—‘‘ When Daniel knew that the writing was signed, 
he went into his house, and his windows being open in his cham¬ 
ber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a 
day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did afore¬ 
time. * * * Then the Idng commanded, and they brought 

Daniel and cast him into the den of lions. * * * Then the 
king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the 
den of hons. * * * ^nd said, 0 Daniel, servant of the liv¬ 
ing God; is thy God whom thou servest continually, able to de¬ 
liver thee from the lions ? Then said Daniel unto the king, 0 
king, hve forever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut 
the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me ; forasmuch as be¬ 
fore him inriocency was found in me; and also before thee, 0 
king, have I done no hurt” ; that is, he had been a good sub¬ 
ject, and always served the king faithfully in all his require¬ 
ments which did not interfere with his duty to his Maker. ‘‘ So 
Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was 
found upon him, because he believed in God.” 

It is worthy of notice that the conduct of Daniel, in violating 
the unrighteous law of his sovereign, not only met with the ap¬ 
probation of God, who shut the mouths of lions for his sake, and 
the approbation of his own conscience, but likewise the approba¬ 
tion of the conscience of the hing himself ^ who rejoiced exceed¬ 
ingly when he learned that Daniel had escaped unhurt, and im- 
me(hately made a decree that in every dominion of his kingdom 
3 


18 


men should tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. The 
king, though a heathen, seemed to have a much more deep im¬ 
pression of the claims of the divine over human authority, than 
some even professing Christians appear to have at the present 
day. 

One more example from the holy scriptures, illustrating the 
principle under consideration, must suffice. The one selected is 
given in the fourth and fifth chapters of Acts. Peter and John 
were expressly commanded by the Jewish rulers “not to speak 
at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus.” But they answered, 
“ Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you 
more than unto God, judge ye ; for we cannot but speak the 
things which we have seen and heard.” These apostles w'ere 
afterwards imprisoned for their disobedience. “ But the angel 
of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them 
forth, and said. Go, stand and speak m the temple to the people 
all the words of this life ;” thus directing them immediately to 
violate their ruler’s commands again, in the same manner they 
had before. Again were they called to an account. Their sim¬ 
ple and ever-memorable reply was—“WE OUGHT TO OBEY 
GOD RATHER THAN MAN.” 

This principle, so concisely laid down and so fi rml y adhered 
to by the apostles, is the great principle which ought to be ad¬ 
hered to in all our civil relations to our fellow-men. Whenever 
human and divine requirements come in competition, we ought 
to obey God rather than man. 

Time would fail me to detail the examples of good men who 
have flourished in different ages of the world. Cast your eye at 
the history of the church, and you will perceive that it was this 
spirit which animated the bosoms of all the great reformers. It 
fired the breasts of the noble-hearted Waldenses, that dwelt in 
the vallies of Piedmont, and roamed on the Alpine mountains. 
It dwelt in the hearts, and was acted out in the lives, of the 
Huguenots of France, as well as in the noble spirits of our Pu¬ 
ritan ancestors of England; in whose intrepid bosoms it lived 
and thrived, midst every species of persecution and suffering 
which human cruelty and human wickedness could invent. 


19 


In all ages of the church there have been those who have illus¬ 
trated this principle, with a courage and boldness which showed 
how deeply it entered into their very souls. 

Who has not heard of John Huss, of Jerome of Prague, of Rid¬ 
ley, and Hugh Latimer, and of Cranmer and John Rogers ? These 
all, as did many others, came to a martyr’s death, most of them by 
burning at the stake ; because they would not obey unrighteous 
laws, but made conscience and the law of God their standard. 
Wickliffe also, and Luther, and John Knox, and a host of others, 
of whom the world was not worthy, though they were not called 
to sacrifice their lives amidst burning faggots, as were many of 
their brethren, yet like them possessed a maetyr spirit, a spirit 
which bid defiance to all human authority that contravened the 
authority of the Most High. 

From men of such spirit came our pilgrim fathers. It was 
this principle of obeying Crod rather than man, that brought them 
to Plymouth Rock, and that laid the foundation of this great Re¬ 
public. Let us cherish their spirit, and prove ourselves worthy 
of such sires. 

Before closing this subject, duty seems to demand of me that 
I bring before your consideration the recent law of our country, 
usually called the “ Fugitive Slave Bill.” This law is one 
which seems to call for the application of the great principle of 
obedience ui^er consideration; inasmuch as it evidently strikes 
at the foundation of Liberty, as well as of those great princi¬ 
ples of action which the God of nature has established. 

To illustrate the character and operation of this law, let me 
state a case. A stranger arrives at your door, faint and ex¬ 
hausted with the fatigues of the day. He frankly states to you 
his case. He is trying to escape from the miseries of slavery, 
‘‘ one hour of which” was declared by Jefferson to be ‘‘ fraught 
mth. more misery than ages of that which our fathers rose in re¬ 
bellion to oppose.” He asks you to befriend him. ffe is hun¬ 
gry, he is thirsty, he is siek, he is a stranger, and he entreats 
you to “ take him in'' You do so. The voice of humanity is 
imperious, and so is the voice of God, which is, “ Love thy 
neighbor as thyself.” You receive him under your roof, you 


20 


furnish him with refreshment, and a couch on which to rest his 
weary limbs. In the morning, ere the way-worn traveller has 
arisen, a man appears at your door, with officers in attendance, 
who claims him as his slave and requires you to give him up. 

Consider now to what you are called upon by the provisions of 
the fugitive slave law, to deliver up this fellow-being, who has a 
soul as deathless as your own. You are required to dehver him 
up into slavery, to be held, (I now quote from the slave laws,) 
to be held, taken, reputed and adjudged to be a chattel per¬ 
sonal, in the hands of his owner and possessor, and his executors, 
administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and pur¬ 
poses whatsoever.” Brevard^s Digest. ‘‘ The master may sell 
him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor. He can 
do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what must 
belong to his master.” Civil Code of Louisiana. 

You are thus called upon to deliver over this immortal man 
into the hands of another, as a piece of property—a chattel— 
an article of human ware—a tool, to be used only for another’s 
benefit. Will you do it ? Think of it still more. Think of man, 
immortal man, sunk to a thing, to a condition to be sold, bartered, 
leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, inherited, taken on execution, 
and knocked off at auction to the highest bidder;—^his deathless 
nature, his intellect, his social affections, his sympathies, his 
hopes—all his attributes of body and soul—mad^ marketable 
commodities. Will you do this deed ? Will you aid in thus an¬ 
nihilating your fellow man, as man., at the bidding of the offi¬ 
cer who stands at your door ? You will not. All the generous 
feehngs of your nature recoil at the very thought. To do such 
a deed would outrage all the noblest impulses of the human 
heart, and all the dictates of humanity, as well as that sense of 
justice and right implanted in your bosom by the Author of your 
being j and, what is more, you cannot do it without coming in 
direct conffict with all the moral attributes of Jehovah, and set¬ 
ting aside his law and counsels. For what is God’s law ? and 
what are his counsels ? Listen: “ Whatsoever ye would that 

men should do unto you^ do ye even so to them. Love thy neigh¬ 
bor as thyself. Deliver the poor and needy. Relieve the op- 


21 


'pressed. Hide the outcasts. Bewray not him that wandereth. 
Deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor. 
Thou shalt rwt deliver to his master the servant that is escaped 
from his master.'*’ Matt. 7 : 12. 22 : 39. Ps. 82 : 4. Isa. 
1 : 17. 16 : 3. Jer. 21 : 12. Deut. 23 : 15. 

Such are the law and counsels of the Lord. And they cor¬ 
respond with the dictates of conscience and the great law of na¬ 
ture. It is thus plain that human law does, in this case, come 
in conflict with the law of God. Take, for instance, the com¬ 
mand, “ Love thy neighbor as thyself a command which no one 
denies is of universal apphcation, to all men, at all times, and in 
all states of being. Following out the spirit of this command, 
can you, when you see your neighbor strugghng to rise from 
brutism into manhood, strike his manhood out of being with your 
own hand,—^when, by your refusing to do this act, he might be 
enabled to preserve it ? Is this doing as you would be done by ? 
Is it not doing to others precisely that which, for worlds, you 
would not have another do unto you ? Human and divine law 
do, then, in this case directly conflict. Will you obey man, or 
God ? You, of course, ought to decide to obey God ; and by 
your decision to obey God rather than man, the slave-holder is 
despoiled of his intended prey. 

You have done right; hut you have broken the fugitive slave 
law^ and have rendered yourself subject to its penalties. And 
what are these ? One thousand dollars fine and six months im¬ 
prisonment, for disobedience to the powers that be ; and then 
one thousand dollars fine, by way of remuneration to the slave¬ 
holder for the loss of what he called his property, and which 
your course had prevented his obtaining. Such are the pains 
and penalties prescribed by the fugitive slave law, for perform¬ 
ing successfully even the simplest act of humanity, with a view 
to aid a fellow-man in retaining his manhood. 

Will it be plead that the law is constitutional, and that we are 
under solemn obhgations to adhere to the Constitution ?* Some 
seem to imagine that the constitutionality of a law, if that can 

* See note A, at the end of this Discourse, showing that the law in question 
is not constitutional. 



22 


be established, settles the question that the law is right. But is 
the Constitution above God, and its provisions of higher obliga¬ 
tion than God’s law ? What is the Constitution ? 'It is a written 
instrument to which men have affixed their signatures as a plan 
of civil government, or basis for the administration of human 
law. And is this instrument to take the place of the great stan¬ 
dard of all law, which the great Author of the universe has es¬ 
tablished ? Is the Constitution paramount, and that to which we 
are to make the ultimate appeal in questions of fundamental mo- 
rahtj ? One would think so, from the tone of some writers, who 
seem to think that all that is wanting to prove a law right, and 
worthy to be obeyed, is to show that it is constitutional. But 
are you prepared to take this ground ? Will you unrol a piece 
of parchment above Jehovah’s throne, in the form of a constitu¬ 
tion, and pay your homage to that, instead of Him who sits 
thereon,—and make that your standard, instead of his declared 
will ? This is nothing short of Atheism. We read—“ The fool 
hath said in his hearty There is no G-od.^’ Those virtually say 
the same thing, who make the Constitution the proper arbiter 
to decide, irrespective of a higher law, on such points of funda¬ 
mental right, and fundamental morahty, as are involved in the 
execution of the fugitive slave bill. 

There is one feature in this law which has not yet been partic¬ 
ularly considered, but a feature important to be noticed,—which 
is, that it leaves NO MAN’S freedom secure. There is not a 
man, woman, or child in this assembly, who is not liable, at any 
time, to be arrested and made over as a chattel to some southern 
master. Already have free citizens had their liberty struck 
down, and their manhood suspended, by the operations of this 
infamous law. It is said, of the eight persons who have been 
arrested on the charge of being fugitive slaves, since the passage 
of this law, and who have been actually delivered over to the 
claimants as such, that/(?iir of the eight were free persons ; and 
that all but one of these, consisting of two women and a child, 
were perfectly white, not having a drop of African blood cours¬ 
ing in their veins. 

As an illustration of the facility with which freemen may be 
converted into slaves, contemplate the recent case of Adam Gib- 


23 


son, a free citizen of Philadelphia.* He was standing in the 
corner of the street, when he was approached by several men, 
and arrested. On attempting to resist, a pistol was placed at 
his head, and he was forced into a carriage and hurried away to 
the office of the United States marshal. He was there charged 
with being a fugitive slave, and the commissioner proceeded to a 
consideration of his case. The man declared that he was a free¬ 
man ; and his friends, who had gathered around him, testified to 
the same thing. But it was all in vain. The law does not pro¬ 
vide for any defence, or any hearing of eHdence on the part of 
the accused. The commissioner remarked that the law de¬ 
manded a summary process and, on the single testimony of 
a man who is said to have been a kidnapper, he declared himself 
satisfied with the evidence, and forthwith delivered him over to 
the claimant’s agent, to be carried to the south, under guard of a 
strong pohce. 

It is with such a ‘‘ summary process” as this, that immortal 
men may have their manhood stricken down, and be placed in 
the condition of brutes^ under the operation of the fugitive slave 
law. And if a sense of outraged justice, rising to the rescue, 
is manifest, and the slaveholder’s agent testifies under oath that 
he fears he shall not be able to keep his victim, the officer in 
charge is authorized to raise any amount of force which he may 
deem necessary to carry out this act of enslavement of a fellow- 
man, and keep that force in his employment as long as he shall 
think proper ; the expense of which, including himself and men, 
the law provides “ shall be paid out of the treasury of the United 
States.” 

Now is such a law right ? and ought it to be supported by 
Christian men ? Can it be our duty to stifie the voice of human¬ 
ity, violate conscience, and set aside the great law of heaven, 
and trample on all the principles of eternal justice, in the manner 
required by this law ? With an immortal nature in trust, con¬ 
science in your bosom, GrOI) on the throne, and a judgment 
DAY in view, I leave you to decide. 

* That Gibson was a freeman, was made certain by the fact that the master, 
(so called) on being presented with the alleged fugitive, would not own him, and 
his friends were allowed to take him back, an acknowledged freeman. 




APPENDIX. 


NOTE A. 


THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL TESTED BY THE CONSTITU¬ 
TION. . 

\ 

Many people are disposed to admit that the fugitive slave law is consti¬ 
tutional, because some very distinguished jurists have pronounced it so. 
It will be recollected that in the time of Ahab, King of Israel, his prophets, 
being very loyal and very zealous to sustain all his laws, taught the people 
that Baal was God, and ought to be worshipped instead of Jehovah. Not 
a few believed the words of the prophets, and worshipped Baal accordingly. 

The following comparison of the law for capturing fugitives, with the 
provisions of the Constitution, will tend to show whether those expounders 
of law, who say that the fugitive slave law is constitutional, are any more 
worthy to be believed than Ahab’s prophets. 

In exhibiting the law in question in contrast with the Constitution of our 
country, let it be observed— 

1. The Constitution is founded on the great principles stated in the De¬ 
claration of Rights which preceded it,—expressed in the following language: 
“We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are Created equal; 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; 
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; 
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” 

In accordance with these great principles,—principles on which all gov¬ 
ernments are properly founded,—we find it laid down in the very platform 
and declared basis of the Constitution, that it is the object of that instru¬ 
ment to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, * * * PROMOTE THE GENERAL WEL¬ 

FARE, and SECURE the blessings of liberty.” 

Now, compare the fugitive slave bill with this; the object of which is, to 
deprive men of those very rights and privileges which it is the express ob¬ 
ject and fundamental design of the Constitution to establish. How perfectly 
absurd, then, to pronounce the law constitutional. 

2. The Constitution declares, (Art. 1: Sec. 9,) that “ the privilege of the 
writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of re¬ 
bellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” 

The habeas corpus provision is designed as a security against hasty pro¬ 
ceedings ; and affords to a person arrested and held in custody for any al¬ 
leged misdemeanor, the privilege of being taken before a magistrate, or 





25 


court of justice, in pursuance of a writ issued from the Judge, and there 
^J^joying the opportunity of showing his innocence. 

^ In opposition to this provision of the Constitution, the fugitive slave law 
directs that the proceeding in the case of the alleged fugitive be “ in a sum¬ 
mary/ manner.** The commissioner may hear as brief testimony from the 
claimant as he may please to pronounce sufficient, and then immediately 
grant to such claimant a certificate of his rights, * * * which certifi¬ 
cate shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport’* the person 
claimed, to the State or Territory from which he is alleged to have es¬ 
caped. And it is expressly provided in this law, that persons thus fur¬ 
nished with the commissioner’s certificate shall not be subject to any moles¬ 
tation in their work of trampling on the liberties of their fellow-men, “ hy 
any process issued hy any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomso¬ 
ever.” Thus is that express provision of the Constitution, which grants 
“ the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,” evaded and set at nought. 

3. The Constitution guarantees the “ right of the people to be secure in 
thgir persons against unreasonable seizures.”— Amendments, Art. 4. 

But the fugitive slave law authorizes slave holders, and their agents, to 
“ seize” men, “ either hy procuring a warrant,” or “ without process,” and 
drag them ’‘'"forthwith” before the commissioner, to have them doomed “m 
a summary manner.” 

4. The Constitution provides that “ no person * * * shall be de¬ 

prived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”— Amend. 
Art. 5. 

But the fugitive slave bill, instead of affording a man the benefit of “ due 
process of law,” just takes him before a commissioner, and condemns him 
unheard. 

5. The Constitution provides that, both in criminal cases, and also “ in 
suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty 
dollars, the right of trial hy jury shall be preserved.”— Art. 3, Sec. 3. 
Amend., Art. 7. 

But the fugitive slave bill, as we have already seen, cuts off this right, 
and makes the commissioner supply the place of judge, jury and execu¬ 
tioner. It is argued, by certain apologists for this law, that it does not cut 
off the right of trial by jury,—there being an opportunity for returned fu¬ 
gitives to secure for themselves such a trial in the Southern States. But 
such sophistry will not deceive those who think for themselves. Let it be 
considered, that the moment the commissioner before whom the alleged 
fugitive is tried, decides against him, all his rights are regarded, in law, as 
annihilated. He is decided to be a mere thing, a “chattel personal,— 
TO ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, and PURPOSES WHATSOEVER.” Has 
a thing of this description “ the right of trial by jury ?” The fact is, when 
the fugitive is delivered over into the hands of the claimant by the commis¬ 
sioner, he is delivered over as a slave, and not as a man. No such thing as 
atrial by jury is ever thought of, or dreamed of, in such a case, by the framers 
of this law. Slaves are defined in slave laws to be chattels personal. And 
what is the meaning of this term ? “ chattels,” says Webster, “ are things 
movable, as animals, furniture of a house, jewels, corn, &c.” Such things 
are slaves; and we might as well talk about a man’s horse having a right to 
a jury trial, as his slaves. Judge Stroud, in his “ Sketch of the Laws relat¬ 
ing to Slavery,” lays it down as the cardinal principle of slavery, that 
“ the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among things !” 
“ This,” he says, “ obtains as undoubted law in all these States,” (the Slave 
States.) 


4 


26 


6. The Constitution provides that excessive fines shall not be impos¬ 
ed.”— Amend., Art. 8. 

Whether one thousand dollars is an excessive fine for jjust giving a cup 
of cold water or a piece of bread to a fellow man, with a view to afford 
him a little strength to lift himself from brutism into manhood, is left for 
the candid to decide. 

7. The Constitution provides that “ the judicial power of the United 
States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as 
the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.”— Con. Art. 3. 

But the fugitive slave law places the judicial power,” in deciding one 
of the most important of all questions, viz : whether a man shall, or shall 
not, be compelled to resign his manhood and become a thing, in the hands 
of commissioners, who may be created by scores at any time, for the con¬ 
venience of slave holders, without any limitation, except the discretion of 
courts. These commissioners, though they may be entirely destitute of all 
legal qualifications, and incompetent to judge of the character and value of 
testimony, it is declared in the fugitive slave law “ shall have concurrent 
jurisdiction with the judges of the circuit court and district courts of the 
United States.” Thus they are authorized fully to execute the judicial 
power which the Constitution has vested in the United States’ courts. 
And from their decision there is no appeal. They may receive a false affi¬ 
davit, or the testimony of a perjured witness, and decide merely from 
such testimony, without being called to any account. There is no jury 
allowed to make up its verdict on the facts. A simple writing from their 
hands, though entirely founded on falsehood, is “ conclusive” in deciding 
the case, whether a man shall be a man or a brute. This simple writing is 
made sufficient by the law to prevent any interference with the claimant, 
“ by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person 
whomsoever,” even the Chief Justice of the United States. If this is not an 
abuse of the judicial power, as laid down in the Constitution, it is difficult 
to conceive what would be. Such a provision would form a blot upon the 
code of the veriest despotisms of the Old World. These commissioners, 
let it be considered, have, virtually, a BRIBE held out before them, by the 
provisions of the law, to induce them to decide against humanity; their 
fee, which the law prescribes, being twice as large when they decide against, 
as when they decide for, the trembling captive before them; ten dollars 
when they grant a certificate to the claimant, and five dollars when they 
withhold it. And to crown all, these mighty functionaries, whom the law 
commissions to make or unmake immortal men—commissions to declare 
whether they shall be men or things—are empowered to raise an army, if 
they think the case requires it, to be kept in service at their discretion—the 
expenses of which “ to be paid out of the treasury of the United States!” 

Here is judicial and executive power, too, with a vengeance ; and not 
exactly, as is quite plain, where the Constitution of the United States has 
placed it. 

But it is said we do find in the Constitution such a provision as the fol¬ 
lowing : 

“ No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, 
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up 
on claim of the party to whom such service or labor is due.”— Amend., Art. 
4, Sec. 3. 

Of this article in the Constitution it is sufficient to say, that it makes no 
provision whatever for the manner in which fugitives shall be given up. 
Of course they are to be delivered up in a constitutional way; that is, in a 


27 


way which does not conflict with other provisions of the Constitution : con¬ 
sequently, it must not be done “ without due process of law,” which in¬ 
volves the right of the “ writ of habeas corpus” and “a trial by jury,” as 
we have already seen. The Constitution is well enough, and its guards 
sufficient, if properly observed. 

NOTE B. 

It has been supposed, by those who have not been made familiar with the 
language of the Fugitive Slave Bill, that it does not very essentially inter¬ 
fere with the offices of humanity towards the fugitive; that “ we may 
clothe, feed, and entertain a fugitive; and send him on his way, and provide 
even for his safety— provided we are not notified by legal authority that he 
is a fugitive.” It will be perceived, from the 7th section of that act, as 
given below, that this is not so. It will be seen by the language of the 
law itself, that it is not necessary that we should receive any notice whatever, 
from legal authority, or any other authority^ that the fugitive is such, in or¬ 
der to subject ourselves to the punishment which the law prescribes. All 
that is necessary is, that we should have “ knowledge” of the fact. The 
law says,-—“ After notice, or KNOWLEDGE of the fact that such person 
was a fugitive,” &c. It does not specify how that knowledge shall be ob¬ 
tained. If the fugitive himself lets you know that he is such, or you ac¬ 
quire a knowledge of it in any other way^ the law is out against you, with 
all its pains and penalties, for rendering the least degree of assistance to 
such person, “ directly or indirectly” You cannot, after such knowledge, 
give him food, or drink, or lodging, or favor him in any other way, to assist 
him in his flight, without incurring the law’s penalty. To show that there 
is no mistake about this, the section of the law relating to this jjoint is given 
entire. It is copied from the National Era, of Washington City. 

Section 7. “ And be it further enacted, That any person who shall 
knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder or prevent such claimant, his 
agent or attorney, or any person or persons, lawfully assisting him, her, or 
them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or 
without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue or attempt to rescue such fugi¬ 
tive from service or labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her 
agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as afore¬ 
said, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declar¬ 
ed ; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person, so owing service or labor as 
aforesaid, directly or Indirectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or 
attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall 
harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of 
such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a 
fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said ofiences, 
be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprison¬ 
ment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the 
district court of the United States, for the district in which such offence 
may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdic¬ 
tion, if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the Unit¬ 
ed States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to 
the party Injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars 
for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt,^ in 
any of the district or territorial courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction 
the said offence may have been committed.” 
















- f 




- \ 


h . • 


J 


/-Vl»*. 


■t ' 


■-,• 7P^:,.Oi’t'-- 

. ' r'. './..I X . ' . .- 

^ >; .ti\ :\ 


'> •• 


»"* , 


■•- y»£.- 


„ V » • \ 

-' ) 


’ . 'I ' 


-. ..-s. .^v-; 

>■ •' •' ’• ./.'• ^•'•" •''' ', 

. ' ■ " V- pV ^ 


r ♦:.- V 


V -w *' - ‘ '. - * 

• ' p' • • > . ^. 


• ■ i 




•»«•> 


!. Tf^'.'yr: 




cp 


3. 


I - ^•* 

*iV'. 


. /* 




•^p. 


..f - 


:• ' 'V//* .’fev • •• ;■• s' 

r.< . -N-^.VV - ■» • ■•- 

.1- -'\yT’ ' >.. ■ p '■ ■ 


■» >».. 


'.. ' Si,*- 


•'. -S ^-.p'^' '•>. ;:•- ■ V\. 


-VN.’i ■ 








*■'1 • . ' s 


• IV. 


‘‘s* 




I'- 


» X' 

/•• - , 
.V - 


. 'S 


■i: 

• . 'y 

■<. .‘ , ' 






C 




flr- 




.< -• 


I 


• »<'• 
' s 

' t 


■*■ » 
•> 


•/ 




•'r *■ 


’ J % 


-I'' 


.V. 


' V : •-' 


•■•»■*• .1 ■-• 






$ ^ 

i,. 




. A 






•'•p^'--.Vp-V-n;" ■'• '" ■'’. - 

. .' • ’ • ' PC ' * .- • ' . 

. -P • , . . 4- . 




> 

. • vX '. 

' ' -a 

nJ) 


■ip. 


i- -.- 


\ ^ 


•s. ', 


‘ V - * • 

J' .V 


-I ' » 


••i : 






*i 


V --f ,•<.'» 

v-V...*' 


• \ 


■• • ^ 4 ' ■ 


,-v» 

• • J 

V . "i 



A» 


i'p *« 


.y 


-ij. 




. « X.. >r 


■ . * •v/ • . 


•v- 

.A?9V , 








' ‘ *1 

\- 

• 4 * -I 


»• , ' 





■< ' . 


* 

■- Vj- '4 < 

, • V. : 

- '«.• r ' A* ■.•-••- •*. ' ’J 




«... :»' # ' 


.V 


4'>. 


4 - » A'J 





. 

s 




* S '* 




ft < -dU 


'k 

V . 





. / 


r? 

• 'v •-- ^'v'' 


-p - • ■' , Vf 


. Ifc . ’ . 


V. 


i <1- > 


> 


A 'V 


'.V '» iV' • • ‘ ■?j\ 

At -A Viti* . . 'i' 




V' 







-.«•- 


• • • . • 

. S. V'. • 

. p** - .V :’v ■ 


- • 4 ^ ^ 




> < 


I 



0 019 830 536 4 


































